Thu, 29 Apr 1999 11:11:41 -0400
On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 11:30:45PM -0800, RE01 Rice Brian T. EM2 wrote:
[blah blah... petty insults deleted]
Make sure you read past the sarcasm here... I have some more serious things
to say... :)
> you closed-minded fool! you can't even figure out the limitations of their
> models of computation! right now, hardware is being built that can perform
> instantaneous computations. eventually, more than an infinite number of
> computations will be possible at a continuous rate! just because no one
What the...? It's top secret, right? Just like the government's secret
pact with the space aliens, UFO's at area S4, cold fusion... if it's real,
let's see it.
Oh, you must be talking about Quantum Computers! Yeah it's all very
interesting, I might even go into that field if I ever go to a university.
But it ain't magic! You gotta read the fine print in those research papers,
separate the wheat from the chaff... I read some of them myself, and there's
always a catch, like "it can perform an instantaneous number of computations
but they're all meaningless except for one".
These other computational systems need a lot of development before they fall
within the scope of Tunes. Let's not get carried away here :)
> mumbo jumbo? hofstadter? you think reading hofstadter will help you
> understand the discussion? can't you think for yourself, instead of
> disagreeing with everything that you hear? can't you give me a chance?
> can't you even look at the references on the Tunes review pages?
Yeah, even Hofstadter is slightly more understandable than your arrow paper,
I'm sorry to say. If you've got something there, only a really bright
person with an extensive CS background would recognize it, the way you've
written it. Likewise, it would take such a person to recognize your paper
as mumbo-jumbo, if that's what it is. If you want *my* support, get out of
this mindset "If you can't understand my great scientific work, you must be
a moron" and write something I can read without losing consciousness! Just
tell me the gist of it, and let me use my imagination. You've got to
convince me that reading your paper isn't a complete waste of time.
> > Hope this clears things up.
> it certainly does. you're exactly the same as the "establishment" that you
> perceive; you're merely part of the establishment of people who are not open
> to new ideas in science and math. you're a person who learns like a
> spoon-fed baby.
Look, this is a mailing list, and this petty arguing is a waste my time,
your time, everyone's time. Just drop it. You're a mathematician, I'm not.
Let's just try to find a peaceful coexistance, ok???
Tom Novelli <firstname.lastname@example.org>